For the purpose of conducting a business the petitioner constructed a shop room within the limits of the first respondent Panchayat. Earlier, the third respondent approached this Court raising grievances against the construction while it was under construction by filing W.P.(C)No.3671 of 2011. That writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment with a direction to the 3rd respondent therein/first respondent herein, to consider the objection, rather, complaint filed by the third respondent herein and to take appropriate decision thereon after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner and the third respondent. Pursuant to the same, the parties were heard and an order was passed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein took up the matter before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing Appeal No.1060 of 2012. The petitioner, the first respondent and the third respondent herein were heard and the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 order in the said appeal. After carefully considering the rival contentions the Tribunal found that the construction in question is an unauthorised construction and at the same time, the petitioner was given liberty to apply for regularisation of the unauthorised construction by amending/rectifying the construction in conformity with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. The Secretary of the first respondent Panchayat was directed not to enforce the impugned order till an order is passed on the application for regularisation provided such an application is filed in tune with the directions thereunder and within the time stipulated thereunder. Subsequent to Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for regularisation. The second respondent noted certain defects in the said application and required the petitioner to cure the defects and to re- submit the same. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petition with the following prayers:-
“(a) Call for the records leading up to Ext.P5 and quash Ext.P2 order passed by the tribunal to the extent it holds the construction effected by the petitioner as unauthorized construction.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider the application for regularisation submitted by the petitioner as per the direction in Ext.P2 and to pass appropriate orders on the said application for regularisation immediately.
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent not to take any steps to demolish the constructions effected by the Petitioner until a decision is taken on the application for regularisation submitted by the petitioner, as directed in Ext.P2.”
Evidently, the grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 application filed by him is not taken up for consideration despite the specific directions in Ext.P2.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
3. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that though defects were noted by respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner was required to cure the defects and to re-submit the application the petitioner has not re-submitted the application after curing the defects. It is further submitted that in case the petitioner re- submits the application after curing the defects in Ext.P2 it would be considered. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that since the 3rd respondent got objections with respect to the unauthorised construction before taking a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation the third respondent may also be granted an opportunity of being heard and raised his objections. After hearing the rival contentions and taking into account the fact that the petitioner is yet to re-submit the application after curing the defects this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:-
In case the petitioner is desirous to submit an application for regularisation availing the liberty granted by the Tribunal he may cure the defects and re-submit the application within two weeks from today. In case the petitioner cures the defects and re-submits the application within the above stipulated time the same shall be considered by the second respondent expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of one month thereafter, with an opportunity of being heard to the 3rd respondent as well and also in accordance with Ext.P2 order. Needless to say if the petitioner is rectifying the construction in conformity with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and not re-submits the application for regularisation the third respondent who accepted Ext.P3 order rather preferred not to challenge the same, cannot have any further grievance. Till a decision is taken on such application no coercive steps shall be taken against the disputed construction.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS